Here is the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM


Mirrorless or bust.
Apr 27, 2019
Crippled again by lack of TC support. Annoying as hell. Really hating Canon's RF lens strategy. The old 70-200 f/2.8L IS II made a great 98-280 f/4L IS and was main reason I sold my 300 f/4L IS. If I wanted little lenses I'd buy m4/3.
So far only the 24-70 f/2.8L IS appeals but not enough to get me to sell my EF version for 30% more cost.
I have never perceived the 70-200 lens as telephoto zooms, my usage has always been portrait for which the focal length spread is ideal (more useful than 85mm or 135mm primes). While it was convent in the EF system to be able to add a 1.4x or 2x extender in a pinch, this was never the prime reason to own a zoom with such a (relatively) short almost 3x factor, when you have competent 70-300 (4x +) or 100-400 (4x) zooms for serious telephoto work. In my EF past, I owned a 70-200 L for portrait work and a 100-400 L for travel / telephoto missions.
Upvote 0
Since I never had L series lenses less than f/2.8 ("Cheap people always pay twice" personal rule), I wonder which one is supposed to be sharper: an f/2.8 at f/4 or a native f/4.

I'm thinking that the f/2.8 will be sharper at F/4. The only way to really know is to read reviews comparing them. If you have never had an L lens less then f/2.8, I think you will be more happy getting the f/2.8 rather then the f/4 unless if you want a lighter lens.
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
An interesting apples to oranges (but useful) size comparison for those still using EF system partially or wholly (or looking to get deals on EF stuff)
[thanks to]. Battle of the travel zooms!

EOS R6 + RF 70-200mm f/4L IS
EOS 6D II + EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS

Personally I find a 70-200 f/2.8 + 70-300 f/4-5.6L combo more interesting with its extra reach than a 70-200 f/2.8 + 70-200 f/4. Might be worth seeing what Canon does for RF 70-300L if you already have the RF 70-200 2.8.

Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0